wongrs

solar thermal, solar PV, wind and run of river are all options. some more expensive than others. entirely disagree with you. many parts of the oil industry have received a great deal in subsidies from the federal and provincial governments. look at the favourable tax scheme on oil sands or the built infrastructure for the logging industry. i'd like to see a report comparing renewables versus other industries that includes tax breaks, subsidies, built infrastructure AND EXTERNALIZED SOCIAL/ECONOMIC COSTS and compare costs on an apples-to-apples basis. if you have this, please share. check out the health impacts of coal power in Ontario (yeah yeah, i know ontario sucks. chretian and trudeau suck blah blah blah): -$10 BILLION in health care costs annually (Ontario Medical Association) -2000 premature deaths per year http://www.electricitychoices.org/coal.html that doesn't even begin to address all the heavy metals and acid rain emissions that come out. if you were to try to 'remediate' all that crap, what do you think that would cost? the answer is a lot. you are correct. wind mills harm various avian species. there is a lot of research going on currently in SW alberta. when the wind industry developed, like every other industry on the planet, it didn't take into consideration all environmental impacts. Take a look at altamont pass in california that was built on a bird migration route. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Altamont_Pass,_California it would be optimal to do extensive research on an area before a build. but these types of facilities WILL DEFINITELY have a negative impact on some wildlife but on a much smaller intensity than coal or oil/gas extraction. think about coal for a second. there's the coal mine (mine tailings, acid drainage, land impacts, water impacts) then the transport of coal to facility, combustion of coal and then the landfill of the leftover crap and heavy metals. again, internalize all the costs and on a per MWH basis, i'm sure renewables will turn out way better. hell, solar PV is already somewhat comparable to the cost of conventional power generation as it is. i whole-heartedly agree with you. reducing your own impact should be the first step. anyone who preaches conservation and doesn't practice it is a hypocrite. perhaps al gore fits into this category, who knows. also, many retrofits are much simpler than the $80,000 figure you quoted. many pay for themselves over and over again. good examples are rechargeable batteries, CFL lightbulbs or LED light bulbs (yes, heavy metals can be dealt with), high efficiency furnaces, regular maintenance to your vehicle, weather proofing your house for excessive draft, shutting your curtains/blinds, buying a rain barrel, shutting down your beer fridge (models that are 15 years old can use 3X as much power to keep things cold), putting daily timers to shut lights down at night, timers to reduce heat while you sleep, low flow showerheads, insulating your hot water pipes etc etc etc. there are many things you can do around the house that will cost you practically nothing and can save a bunch of money and energy. anyways, there is still value in electing a party that gives a damn about environmental issues. if you think the environment is important and you can't bring yourself to vote liberal or NDP, then there's still the green party available.

another item to add is to prevent the handling of fish in a vertical hanging position. with longer fish, their internal organs can get damaged from holding fish upright by the tail or the head. (or so i've heard).

An elderly man goes into the drop-in clinic for a digestion problem with his elderly wife. They are both brought into an examination room to discuss the symptoms. After hearing the symptoms, the doctor says "Well, to run the appropriate tests we're going to need a blood sample, a urine sample and a stool sample". The elderly man is hard of hearing and replies "What sonny?". The doctor repeats himself "We're going to need a blood sample, a urine sample and a stool sample to run some some tests". The elderly man still can't hear him. "What?". Then his wife, fed up with his hearing shouts in his ear "Just give him your underpants!".

investing in renewables and energy efficiency means diversifying the economy (rather than putting all our eggs in one basket). there is a huge turnaround happening in the US and in Canada regarding regional regulations for greenhouse gases (whether you believe in GW or not). many jurisdictions are in the process of implementing caps or taxes on GHG emissions meaning that there will be a large uptake of renewable and energy efficiency technologies. if we invested in that sector now, then the entire continent would be looking to Canada to provide those solutions. creating the infrastructure, technology, training and consulting services in Canada would be a smart thing IMO. otherwise, the US will get it done and when Canada finally gets regulations in place, guess what, we'll be buying foreign technology which means a net export of $$$ leaving the country (which is exactly what harper was bitching about CDM carbon offsets). it is a major opportunity that is going to pass us by. it's ok, because we have a thousand years of coal and the largest heavy oil deposit in the world. we'll just deal with the heavy metals emissions, land use impacts and water consumption of those resources. that's a better strategy. want to know what comes out of a coal plant every year? check this: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/querysite/facility...eport_year=2006

i'm pretty sure that if i caught one like this i'd *hit my pants bigtime.

dang!

wicked pics esleech. that first rainbow looks like homestarrunner.

an aquarium net works well and will cost you <5 bucks.

looks like a fun event. the sponsors look awesome. i'd come if i was in town. it's a great way to meet up with your fellow fisher-people and learn some new tips and tricks for the bow.

hey, good for you Matt! let me know if you have any questions/concerns on the logistics of last year's cleanup. i'd be happy to discuss. rich

the things that make casting difficult for a beginner are 3 things (not that i'm a pro-star or anything): 1) weight on the fly 2) wind resistance of the fly 3) having multiple hinge points (multiple flies, indicators, swivels, split shots, split rings etc). 1) the weight of the fly will have an impact on how you cast. for a single fly, a dry should be the lightest and nymph the next lightest and a streamer the heaviest. there are exceptions but this is the general rule. the easiest to cast should be the lightest fly. a small dry (like a size #14-#20 parachute adams or elk hair caddis) you should be able to false-cast no problemo. if you're having problems with this step, then feel free to re-post or pm if you'd like more advice. 2) the wind resistance of the fly will impact how easy it is to throw out there and turn over. the bushier the fly, the harder it is to zing out there and turn over (which is a fancy way of saying that your leader straightens out). this is also impacted by the stiffness of your leader and tippet material. if you are chucking small dries and you find that your leader/tippet is not extending past the end of the fly line, then it is probable that you need to change the stiffness of you leader and tippet. 3) having multiple 'things' on your line will make things difficult. these can include any of the above things i mentioned before. stick with 1 fly for now until the casting is down. once it is down, you can add extras to your rig. once you add extras, i'd also suggest opening your loop up (cross that bridge when you get there). to summarize, if you want to improve casting, then i suggest casting small dries (#12-20) on a 9' tapered leader. get that down and then move to casting a single nymph and then move to multiple jazz on your rig. if you want to start nymphing with an indicator and 2 flies right off the bat, then learn how to roll-cast or cast with a larger loop. my 2 cents. hope this helps.

thanks. i'll be breezing through town next week staying close to bragg creek and wanted to know if it was fishable (by the regs). i hope it won't be too too too dirty.

Can someone verify for me that canyon creek on the Elbow River is upstream (west) of Bragg Creek? In other words, as of June 16th, the Elbow is legally fishable downstream of Bragg Creek. I can only find vague descriptions of Canyon Creek on the interweb. Elbow River -from headwaters downstream to Elbow Falls (16-22-6-W5) & tributaries except Quirk Creek. June 16 to Oct. 31 – Brook Trout limit 2; Other Trout limit 0; Bait Ban. Nov. 1 to June 15 – CLOSED -from Elbow Falls downstream to Canyon Creek – CLOSED -from Canyon Creek downstream to Glenmore Reservoir, & tributaries including former Allen Bill Pond, except Canyon Creek June 16 to Oct. 31 – Trout limit 2; Cutthroat and Rainbow over 35 cm; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm; Maggots are the only bait allowed and only in the river from Aug. 16 to Oct. 31. Nov. 1 to June 15 – CLOSED -from Glenmore Reservoir downstream to Bow River CLOSED Apr. 1 to May 31 and Oct. 1 to Nov. 30 June 1 to Sept. 30 and Dec. 1 to Mar. 31– Trout limit 1 under 35 cm; All trout over 35 cm must be released; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm; Maggots are the only bait allowed and only in the river from Aug. 16 to Sept. 30.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showd...s.aspx?sid=3351 colbert report parody. check part 2 of 4 for 06/10/08 @ the 3:32 mark. amusing.

that looks really good. it's inspired some new ideas for me. thanks for posting.

perhaps a disk cleanup function that compressed, renamed and moved them somewhere else?

found this while avoiding work just now: http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/canada/can113.php http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/canada/can114.php check it!

wicked pics max as always.

i just bought the mec hydrofoil jacket that is currently on sale. $60 in select colours/sizes. worked great this past weekend.

if you're into star wars that is: http://www.nikkoamerica.com/nhe/dvd_projector_video.html

Good for you Nick for taking it to your MLA. That's the democratic way. They say that 1 visit is worth 50 phone calls and 50 phone calls is worth 2500 emails or whatever the numbers are. I tried to meet with my MP while I was in Calgary a number of times (Jim Prentice, heard of that guy?). We'd make appointments with his helper person who would continually cancel last minute on us. It was awesome. Anyways, I don't have any photos for you but I would like to write you a short letter of support for your meeting with your MLA. It might help to show that you share the same views as others when it comes to this particular issue. It will be harder for your MLA to dismiss your concerns as 'from that wingnut guy that came in to see me that day'. If interested, please send me a PM. Perhaps others would do the same or put their name to a list?

there was somebody a few years back that wanted to canoe from carsland downstream somewhere. they went to put their canoe in and there wasn't enough flow to float the canoe. think i saw it in a bow river keeper video. ag does use quite a bit of water (something in the area of 70%+ as i recall).

i don't know a damn thing about photography but those are nice looking shots!

well that's exactly why i ask the question "what defines an eco-weenie". if it's about perspective, then jimmy-jo-poacher (or even perhaps rush limbaugh or ann coulter) would call you and i "eco-weenies" because we think fish should be conserved and not poached. for that matter, mr. poacher might accuse the provincial or federal government of being eco-weenies because they dare to impose catch limits or close down waters for spawning. well how dare a bunch of fisherman sponsor more patrollers on my poaching waters! eco-weenies! look at those eco-weenies cleaning up rivers...idiots! or perhaps exxon mobil believes we're eco-weenies because we would like them to pay their fine for the exxon-valdez catastrophe. to me the term "eco-weenie" implies that you are demonizing people who care about their environment and their environmental footprint. you've both noted that we should try to limit our impacts whether it they be land, air, wildlife or water impacts and obviously i'd agree with that. you are in fact trying to use the term to describe people that support in global warming. by the way, labeling people and demonizing them on their beliefs is also a form of discrimination. really people are going to have varying degrees to how much they believe an idea or not...it's not simply black and white. just because i (or anybody else) might be an eco-weenie doesn't really mean that i deserve a negative label because by reducing my impacts (whether they be GHG or other) it really benefits you in other ways. for example reducing my power consumption to reduce my GHG emissions would also reduce the amount of acid rain precursor emissions and heavy metal emissions that end up blowing over into saskatchewan/manitoba. it would also reduce the amount of mining operations going on in say the elk river valley. my ghg reductions are helping to reduce other impacts that you would care about. i don't think you have a problem with people that are eco-weenies. i think you have a problem with people telling you what to do or people telling you what to do while they do the opposite. those terms are called being 'bossy' or being 'hypocritical'. being an eco-weenie is a good thing. caring about your environment is a good thing and caring about bird kills in a toxic tailings pond is a good thing regardless of what's happening elsewhere in the world. and just so you know, most people are aware of al gore's and david suzuki's strengths and faults. they have good and bad qualities just like everybody else.

what's an eco-weenie? how would one go about defining an eco-weenie? am i an eco-weenie because i like trees and fish?